Obama’s still over a month away from actually becoming the president–for now the shoes are still flying at Bush’s head–but some on the left are already nervous. Count me among them.
I understand the political chess play that Obama is involving himself in by selecting highly popular evangelical Rick Warren to give his invocation, but for those of us who hope to see homosexual rights advanced, the symbolism of a man who believes gay marriage is an abomination (Warren) being involved in the swearing-in of a man who we hoped would bring change (Obama) is disheartening.
Andrew Sullivan writes for The Atlantic:
Rick Warren will give the invocation at Obama’s inauguration. Warren is a man who believes my marriage removes his freedom of speech and cannot say that authorizing torture is a moral failing. Shrewd politics, but if anyone is under any illusion that Obama is interested in advancing gay equality, they should probably sober up now. He won’t be as bad as the Clintons (who, among leading Democrats, could?), but pandering to Christianists at his inauguration is a depressing omen. More evidence that a civil rights movement needs to realize that no politician can deliver for us what we have to deliver on our own.
While I applaud Warren’s admirable efforts to help the poor and bring comfort to those with HIV/AIDS, I’m also disappointed that he clings to the same cultural hang-ups that so many fundamentalist Christians do (those who say homosexuality is evil, but ignore the verses preceding that say eating shellfish is an abomination) and I hope that Obama’s inauguration choice is not indicative of a pandering, do-nothing administration.
I recommend that anyone who is even remotely interested in gay rights watch For the Bible Tells Me So.